JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of order dated 07.08.2014 as modified by order dated 07.07.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 68/2015 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. By order dated 07.08.2014, a Coordinate Bench, on coming to the conclusion that Clause 23 of the agreement dated 20.04.2011 entered into between the parties providing for "standing committee for settlement of disputes", was not functional and based on determination, appointed one Shri D.K.S. Rai, Retired Chief Engineer, C.A.D. Irrigation, Kota as the Sole Arbitrator. 3. Whereafter, on application filed by the respondent herein, the order dated 07.07.2015 was passed, changing the Arbitrator from Mr. D.K.S. Rai to Mr. B.V. Ahuja, Retired Chief Engineer (M.E.S). 4. The present application has been filed by the applicant on 21.09.2015 inter alia seeking recall of the orders dated 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015 on the ground that this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 21/2013 M/s. Trimurti Constructions, Ajmer Vs. Vice Chancellor Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Anr. decided on 01.07.2014, had already taken a view that the similar nature clause in the agreement, providing for "standing committee for settlement of disputes", was not an arbitration agreement and therefore, the orders deserve to be recalled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that though the order dated 01.07.2014 in the case of Trimurti Constructions was passed by the same Bench, the order dated 07.08.2014, contrary to the law already laid down was passed by the court and when this aspect was brought to the notice of the same Bench, in another matter between the same parties, in SBCMAP No. 85/2015 in SBCMAP No. 98/2014 (Resident Engineer Devision III, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur Vs. M/s I.P. Singh Construction Co.) by order dated 21.07.2015, the order passed earlier was recalled and the application under Section 11(6) of the Act was dismissed and therefore, the order dated 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015 deserve to be recalled, in the present case as well. Further submissions were made that objection about lack of arbitration agreement has already been raised before the arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further submissions were made that objection about lack of arbitration agreement has already been raised before the arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the application filed is belated; the order, which has been passed by this Court on 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015, were passed as persona designata and therefore, the application seeking recall/review itself is not maintainable. 7. Further submissions have been made that the respondents has already made some initial payment to the Arbitrator and that on the assumption of the clause in question being an arbitration agreement, an order under Section 9 of the Act has already been passed in favour of the respondent, which order may also get affected on account of the such recall and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, it is factually correct that on 07.08.2014 when the arbitrator was initially appointed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the judgment dated 1.07.2014 in the case of Trimurti Construction by the same Bench was already in existence, wherein, identical clause in the agreement therein, was held to be not an arbitration agreement and application filed under Section 11(6) of the Act was rejected. 10. It is apparent that the order dated 07.08.2014 as modified by order dated 07.07.2015 was passed in ignorance of the earlier order dated 1.07.2014 passed by the same Bench. In view of the above fact situation, the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Act essentially was liable to be rejected. 11. Further, when in similar nature orders passed, the order in the case of Trimurti Constructions was brought to the notice of the same Bench at the relevant time, the Bench beside other cases, in a case between the same parties has recalled an order on 21.07.2015 in SBCMAP No. 85/2015 as noticed hereinbefore, which clearly brings out the aspect that the same Bench was also not inclined to maintain the orders appointing arbitrator passed based on the clause 23. 12. 12. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the plea that as the orders dated 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015 were passed as persona designata and therefore, the application for recall/review was not maintainable is concerned, the same has been noticed for rejection only. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618 laid down that the orders passed under Section 11(6) of the Act, are judicial in nature and once the orders have held to be judicial in nature, the High Court in view of its plenary powers has enough power to recall/review an order, which appears to be incorrect to the Court. 14. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent regarding payment of fee to the arbitrator are concerned, in view of the fact that proceedings before him have not been initiated, parties can make a request to arbitrator himself for consideration in this regard. 15. So far as the other aspect raised regarding the order passed under Section 9 of the Act is concerned, the law would have to take its own course and the said aspect cannot be per-empted at this stage. 16. In view of the above fact situation, the orders dated 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015 passed by this Court deserve to be recalled. 17. In view of the above discussion, the application is allowed, the orders dated 07.08.2014 and 07.07.2015 passed in SBCMAP No.68/2015 are recalled and it is ordered that S.B. Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.68/2015 shall stand dismissed. 18. The respondent would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.